Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order allowing an amendment of plaint on grounds of discrepancy in clauses. The High Court held that no interference was required and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp1991-13.sxw
pvr 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1991 OF 2013
Revnisiddhppa Gursiddhppa Loni ... Petitioner V/s. 1.Vishawanath Virapakshppa Avasekar & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar, for Petitioner.
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT , J.
DATE : 15th APRIL , 2013.
P.C. :
pvr 2/2 wp1991-13.sxw
exception to by the petitioner. In view of the fact that while carrying out the amendment, instead of mentioning clauses 1(a) and 1(b) in paragraph 13(E), only clause 1(a) was mentioned the same, therefore, gave cause for filing the instant application below Exhibit 337.
change the nature of the suit and therefore, allowed the said application.
Ravisiddhp Gursiddhp Loni
Vishawanath Virapakshppa Avasekar
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
